has an idea of what the property looks like in the existing conditions and is dealt with violation
issues uh it's very obvious from the presentation from mitch pritzker we i i think we all do have
an understanding of what we're talking about here so not to belabor the point i i do see
my notes say that the wica letter stated no position and then it then it goes on to say
voting results noted majority oppose um could someone clear that could you clear that up for
me mr yes we are in we're in opposition to this but he's talking about the letter that you actually
submitted yes the letter that we submitted said we were in opposition to this excuse me this is
no it did not it gave the voting results but in the section where you are to cross off your
position, no position was stated. And we were not, we don't, we're not privy to any additional
And we were not privy to any additional documents besides the email that was sent and what we provided in the packet on page 60.
documents besides the.
So we have our meeting summary. We also provided a letter. Do you guys have that letter that we sent?
I don't believe I was copied on that letter.
No, we don't have it.
I have that, yeah. And we're not faulting you, Mr. Flesher. We're just pointing it out.
I mean, you know, you can't have a hearing, a listening to both sides without having the proper documentation.
So that's why I raised it.
I was confused.
It says WICA took no position stated and only voting results noted majority opposed.
So I'm totally confused.
This is all I received.
So this is what I provided to the board, and we were not given any additional letter or anything else, as already mentioned, Chairman.
Yeah, Mr. Flesher.
Great.
So you told me how you would like me to proceed then, I guess, in this.
Would you like me to share what I have?
I did email.
I can look at my sent emails right now in regards to this.
Aaron, do we have – well, we don't know.
We didn't receive anything from – or have we received anything from WICA?
Mr. Flesher, he wants to share.
Are these documents we've already seen?
Are they all in the file?
This would have been – so March 18th, they sent an email that was to rcozba at phila.gov,
Sharon Saletta at phila.gov, pcpc.zoning at phila.gov, and it was a submission of evidence,
and on that same day, I also submitted, sent our letter of opposition, as well as our meeting
summary. So it's confusing to me why you guys didn't get these items. In any case,
can he be permitted, please, to go forward and present the evidence that he has rather than
the chair and i haven't seen any of the documents that he's trying to present so i don't know i
understand that but if the rules are not the same for someone who is presenting if you want to see
these documents and you're requesting an additional hearing to review them but i will i will defer to
the chairman on this um i well i think in all fairness that uh the attorney representing the
the applicant should have had knowledge of what is going to be presented today beforehand.
Of course, but on the other hand, the attorney of record isn't required to copy the neighborhood
organization on the documents that are submitted to the board five days in advance. And it's often
the case that third parties or RCOs will appear at the hearing and present new evidence. If it
raises issues that the attorney would like additional time to resolve, then there's the
possibility of a different hearing but i don't think we can ban rcos and third parties from
testifying yeah i wasn't suggesting that i just want to make sure that we're in all fairness that
we're all everyone is looking and viewing the same materials and so we'll go forward with mr
flesher's testimony and i'm not as concerned about photos i'm more concerned about that we went to a
meeting that we got the results and then sometime after that another letter with something different
was written and i wasn't privy to any of that so that's more of the concern than the photos i'm not
um i don't have any issue with him wanting to present photos well i i think that the you know
the other the owner's letter to his neighbor which had the the letters that you received and support
mr de chico were came from the letter that this uh neighbor the uh the owner of this property
sent to the near neighbors so i do think that it's material that that his argument i think in my
opinion is dishonest. I would like to present the letter that he shared with his neighbors in order
to garner that support. Okay, we'll grant that. Let's see the letters. Okay, so I will share my
screen now. Great, can everyone see this? A little bit larger, that would be helpful.
Sure. Yeah. Does that work for everyone? I think so, yes. Great. So the first thing I would like
to say is that there's a pattern of previous refusals on this block. Ms. Pritzker said that
there are other legal parking pads. There are not. There's only one property on this block,
property 269, with a legal parking pad for a single-family house. There are some drives for
There are some drives for multifamily. I don't consider those as comparable to this situation.
multifamily. I don't consider
So there's a history for 247 Rochelle Ave, which was denied in 1999. 249, the same property as
was stated by Mr. Beller, was pursued a variance in 2001 and was denied. 241 Rochelle was denied
in 2000 and 279 was denied in 2001. And so there's a pattern and a history of refusals for this type
of variance on this block that we think should be upheld and continued. So these are those.
Fletcher, would you happen to know if, go back to some of the, go back to that first page.
You happen to know if any of those cases that were denied, are people using their
uh pads uh currently the parking car yeah so currently no one who uh doesn't have a current uh
uh current zoning use is using their parking pad no one else does and i live in this neighborhood
and your neighbors will testify the same okay just want to know all right thank you please proceed
uh so these are those notices of decision uh furthermore uh 279 rochelle uh went to the
court of common pleas and the court of common pleas affirmed the zba's decision to deny the
variance and this was in 2002 um this is exhibit three this is the letter from the owner jesse
evans to the near neighbors um i can read the whole letter or i can just read uh some experts
that excerpts that i think are relevant to this if that's okay please do great so he says uh in
this letter uh the reason i am writing you today is due to our immediate next door neighbor's
objection to our driveway and using their kids safety as a ploy for blocking us from our park
parking on our land slash driveway he goes on what seems to be our neighbor's agenda is using
the driveway to create a semi-private space for themselves to park in front of their house
and he concludes i ask you to i write to ask you for support and hope that you do the right thing
for your fellow neighbors saving spots on the street for other cars to park and supporting
another citizen for their right. So the current owner, Evans, I think is mischaracterizing this
whole situation as one in which a next door neighbor is trying to take his rightful spot
from him, which is not what's happening. He is trying to take a street parking spot and privatize
it for himself by turning his illegal parking pad into a legal parking pad. And I think because
he's um kind of misrepresents the situation in this letter he um you know the the the form letter
that he has at the bottom which was presented to you uh before and the um the what was it uh how
many near neighbors was it said uh the neighbors who sent this in you know they they did not have
i think an uh this honestly represented to them before signing this letter of support and sending
it into you i don't want to belabor the point but can we go back to the photographs of the yeah 249
you have a shot from the street uh i do have shots from the street looking at the houses
either you or rachel somebody i do i do um i have it mr termen as well the pictures that um
mr flusher is bringing up are ones where uh the next door neighbor who doesn't want this to be
legalized was parking to block um the spot i'm only looking at his realm we're trying to figure
out um you got two photographs up there i guess they're both the same property correct there yes
all these all these are the red the red car the gray car whatever there's all parked in in the
same location that we're discussing now that is correct all right uh but i there's another
photograph i think rachel had it takes it back a little bit further from almost from the street
looking at the house yeah would you would you like me to stop sharing so she could share that again
yes please
this one
that's the one
so it looks the front door
to the left is that the
neighbor who is
objecting
is that 247
or 251
I believe it's to the left
247 to the left
that is the neighbor who has
been raising the objection correct
property line and there's a curb cut which is really only the curb cut just is for 249 but
not too is that 251 again or is that 247 247 247 all right all right and excuse me
all right and excuse me counselor i'm looking at the picture also is there
curb cut for both properties no it's only for 249 correct if you look now you'll see where the uh
looks like the vent the water vents are oh that's that's better all right and how what i'd like to
trying to compare apples to apples here the other properties on the street where people are parking
on a pad is the configuration the same where the the door to each property is next to each other
or they yep so here's um for example that's exactly what i was looking for so you have a fence
and it looks like a little pathway leading from the sidewalk to the entrance to the house on the
left and the house on the right would be a similar layout to 249 is that correct yes and this is um
it's not unique in that sense this is a little bit different but not totally different yeah 269
there that's the only that's the only legal parking pad and they're currently the only house
actually parking in front of this mr flusher but that's the one i referenced that was approved
yes that's that's what i'm saying as well that one is we're all in agreement on that i'm just
trying to look at if there's the obstruction if this 249 is is any different than the picture
we're looking at now the example it doesn't seem to be i could be wrong but the issue with 269 uh
being different is that it's near the end of the block and it's also semi-detached so it's not an
rsa5 this is would be an rsa yep and they also have enough space in front of their house for two
uh two cars so by taking one away and again this is also older 1993 that this was granted
i also believe it's only legalized for one parking spot but apparently the neighborhood
doesn't have a concern with the two here but i don't believe it was actually legalized for
two parking spaces because you'd be into this pathway okay thank you uh i actually think it
is for two i'm sorry chair if i could interject the thought that we do have a couple more hands
raised to testify for this particular case let me get to them thank you okay um any the board
have any questions for uh this witness as before we move on to the next i have a little more to
present if that's okay concerning i mean it's obviously concerning the application but yes um
there's a uh there is a petition with the near neighbors that have signed it in opposition that
i'd like to show chairman again this is a document i have not seen i don't know who signed it i didn't
to look at it and it wasn't shared with me so um yeah let's we'll stipulate that there are other
signature there are signatures people who are opposed to this okay i would just like to put
on the record that it is uh how many of those signatures are on the uh 200 block of rochelle
avenue uh there are 12 signatures on that that are in opposition to this where do they reside
all with all on this block they're all within they're all on your neighbors yes 200 block of
rochelle okay that is correct yes we'll stipulate that to that and okay um thank you for your
testimony like next he actually is the directly the other near neighbor directly adjacent so i
think before just other members of the community at large it might uh consider to allow him to
I would also like to, if it's all right, I would like to expand on the issue that Mr. Beller talked about.
There's actually more to that story that I think is relevant to this.
If you can hold off, I'd like to, Rachel, you said something, the neighbor to the right?
Yep, the neighbor at 251, I believe, has been waiting on the line.
So I'd like to, as a directly adjacent near neighbor, I would like him to have the opportunity.
His name is Dave, last name is L-E-I-T-C-H.
Mr. David, you can unmute yourself.
All right, can you hear me now?
Yes, hi.
Please identify yourself with the record,
spell your last name, provide us with your address.
Sure, my name is David Leach, L-E-I-T-C-H.
I live at 251 Rochelle Avenue, right next to 249.
We don't have any concerns with-
Excuse me, excuse me, I just got to swear to you.
So we're not firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
We have no concerns.
Myself and my partner have no concerns with someone parking in that place.
From what our experience has been since we've been here,
and my partner's been here a lot longer than I, and I've been here about six years.
There's always been a car parked there.
There never had been any expressed concern of people parking in that location in the past prior to, I guess, most recently.
i guess most recently so uh we do not have any concerns whether it's safety or aesthetics
So we do not have any concerns whether it's safety or...
or any of those types of situations your partner does he own the house uh she owns the house
yes she owns it okay thank you all right anyone else testify please raise your hand
i have a jesse evans hello i am actually the property owner and i just wanted to clarify i
I think we'll get to you.
We'll get to you.
We'll get to you.
Just hang in there.
Anyone else?
Maria?
Maria, you can unmute yourself.
Ms. Larson.
Maria Larson.
Call my last name and provide us with your address.
Maria Larson.
Maria Larson.